Looking for info: Partial Preterism

There were 1290 days from the day that the armies of Cestius surrounded Jerusalem, thus putting the Abomination of Desolation in place till the daily sacrifice failed, there 45 days from that day till the fall of Jerusalem according to Josephus. That makes 1335 days in all.

There is another alternative. There were 1335 years 1335 prophetic days from the founding of Mohamedism to 1917 when Allenby entered Jerusalem, thus ending Turkish rule over the city. There is a Turkish coin showing thje date 1917 on one side and 1335 on the other..

 

Yes you do, you believe Jesuit futurism.

 

What do you think the Abomination of Desolation was? I've recently read a theory that it could have been the apostate Jewish priesthood in the Temple.

 

That was not greater than AD 70. At that time the temple was destroyed, the sacrifice finished, the priesthood finished, women eating theri own offspring, the bodies of those that had recently worn the sacred garments were thrown in the street an trampled upon the city rased to the ground, and thousands of \jews crucified. and sold into slavery some to Egyptian mines in fulfilment of the prophecy in Deut 28.

There was no tribulation SUCH AS that.

 

I don't have a side. There are not many like me around.

 

I consider IFB are neo Brethren. I was in the Brethren for some years , so I know their teachings, and the same ones are trotted out here.
Here there are Gospel Standatd Baptists, strict Calvinist and followers of Gadsby. There are General Baptists in the Baptist Ubion which are mostly liberal and will believe anyrthing, There are Grace Bapists, Independent Baptists, Strict Baptists, Strict and particularr Baptists, Particualr Baptists, and no doubt many more, oh and my church is an Independent Baptist.

 

Now I feel as though I've led a sheltered life. I had no idea there were so many.

 

It would be impossible. Preterist have changed the dates of nearly every NT book to suit their beliefs. Back then books and letters were hand copied or spoken verbally. At a time of Roman persecution it would not had no time to be read or fully distributed. Chances are John was still on the isle of Patmos when he wrote it and on the Isle of Patmos in 70 AD.

The understanding of Revelation was completely incoherent back then anyway as it is TODAY to Preterist today.

The catalyst that sent John to Patmos was after he was arrested he was first sent to Rome where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by a miracle and wasn't burned. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. Domitian reigned between 81 and 90 AD!

You accept the teachings of people like Hank Hanegraaff, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, etc., over Polycarp who was a student of John the Revelator who wrote the Revelation, and Irenaeus who was a student of Polycarp!

There's no way to mistake what Irenaeus said that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian. The only people who question and pervert what he said are Preterists. Domitian reigned between 81 and 90 A.D.

There's no question Irenaeus said John penned Revelation toward the END of Domitian's reign! That cannot be disputed and that alone DEBUNKS Preterism!

Preterist refuse to understand prophecy in a future sense. It's so much easier for them to claim "it already happened." Preterism is a prophetic cop out because they're unable and unwilling to pursue understanding it in the future sense.

What good would it do for John to write about 20 chapters of prophecy to Churches in Asia minor about Jerusalem's destruction anyway? Revelation was written to those churches because that area was the first to be evangelized and were well established. Asia minor was very active part of the world at that time. It's a message to churches and their condition throughout all ages.

I heard some of the Preterist UNDERSTANDINGS of Revelation and Mathew 24 and I laugh at nearly every one. Like the earthquakes Jesus mentioned in Mathew 24 are "the ground shaking events that surrounded Jerusalem in 70 AD! Now that's a good one!

They may have understood the situation at hand with Rome but there was no one in the first century who understood Revelation clearly. It's so full of symbolism that 5-10 years (which is incorrect anyway) is very little time to distribute let alone study a symbolic letter, especially during a time of Roman persecution. So it made no sense and provided no message to people in that day. Besides that it's a preterist pipe dream that the book was written before 70AD anyway.

The age didn't end in 70 AD, it continues today. It began in 33 AD and continues until the Lord's return at the parousia when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord. AND! The gospel is still being preached...

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Go ahead, I know what verse you're going to quote.

Mathew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world/aeon; G165 and the reapers are the angels.

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. G165

So shall it be at the end of the world: G165 the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

What record do you have of angels reaping, the tares being burned, and the wicked being severed from the just in 70 AD? (judgment)

The word THIS is also translated THAT, THESE, THEY, THE SAME.

i.e. EVEN SO, THE SAME GENERATION THAT SEES ALL THESE THINGS SHALL NOT PASS UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED.

That's the correct rendering of the text.

It astounds me that full Preterist believe Jesus returned in 70 AD!
None of the church fathers like Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp, and Irenaeus mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred. However, that doesn't seem to matter to a full Preterist!​

 

Mark Hitchcock and Hank Hanegraaff (The Bible Answer Man) had a debate on this.

Mark Hitchcock (95AD) vs. Hank Hanegraaff (65AD)

Great resource for anyone questioning the 95AD date. I can say with confidence, you won't after this debate. The 65AD date is just about impossible to defend. It's utterly ludicrous.

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

You can also purchase from the John Ankerberg Show. The Great Debate on Revelation The downloadable audio is only $15 total.

 

I would say that Jesus' words in Mathew 24 are literal. In Revelation, John uses literal words and items of his day "figuratively" to represent something in the distant future.

 

I don't necessarily agree with everything that David Kent believes, but why do you demand a literal interpretation when this sort of description is used in the prophets to describe the calamity of divine judgment on a place?

For instance, Isaiah 34 -- a passage that would be very familiar to Jesus and His hearers -- uses the following language regarding the coming judgment of Edom:

Isaiah 34:1-10
Come near, you nations, and listen;
pay attention, you peoples!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it,
the world, and all that comes out of it!

The Lord is angry with all nations;
his wrath is on all their armies.
He will totally destroy them,
he will give them over to slaughter.

Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will stink;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.

All the stars in the sky will be dissolved
and the heavens rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.

My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens;
see, it descends in judgment on Edom,
the people I have totally destroyed.

The sword of the Lord is bathed in blood,
it is covered with fat—
the blood of lambs and goats,
fat from the kidneys of rams.
For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah
and a great slaughter in the land of Edom.

And the wild oxen will fall with them,
the bull calves and the great bulls.
Their land will be drenched with blood,
and the dust will be soaked with fat.

For the Lord has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.

Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!

It will not be quenched night or day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.​

Notice the key phrases I have highlighted in red.

Last time I checked, the stars are still in the sky, the heavens have not been rolled up, and there is no smoke "rising forever" from the site of ancient Edom.

I learned this lesson as a young Christian teenager when we studied this passage in Sunday School. I asked the teacher if he had a modern photo of this burning sulfur and the smoke plume reaching into the sky. (I grew up in the midst of refineries and a sulfur extraction plant, so this was not an obscure image.) The teacher stammered and didn't know how to answer the question since he suddenly had his faith rocked. Over time, I read more of the prophets and realized that they were using extreme imagery that is quite different than what we would use in a post-Enlightenment Western culture. It would actually be quite surprising if they thought and spoke using the same metaphors we use.

If we are going to interpret scripture by scripture, we can know that there is an extremely high probability that this is metaphorical language, not literal.

 

You don't have you guess, the gospels tell us.

• Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
• 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
• 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

• Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
• 15And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:
• 16And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.

• Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
• 21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

You will see that Luke is speaking about the same thing, just not in such hidden language, So take no heed of what Brethren and neo Brethren say, It is the same thing. The Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem was the AOD.

 

The tribulation, they fled when they say the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. As I have said, the next thing the Jews will know of Jesus the Lord's return.

 

Something I've noticed about Luke's gospel is that, as a companion of Paul to the Gentiles, Luke interprets a lot of the Jewish imagery for his readers.

 

I don't think there is any doubt from the early church writers, that in was about AD 95-96,

 

What makes you think so? Aside from Revelation, I thought there was general consensus about when the rest of the NT was written. For Revelation, there is very strong evidence for an early dating, which I'll get into in a bit.

This would be the same Irenaeus who said that Jesus lived into His 50s. Furthermore, Irenaeus's quote about the John and Revelation is very ambiguous. Aside from Irenaeus, Futurists have very little support for a late date writing of this book. OTOH, Preterists look to internal evidence, within the Book itself.

Remembering that one of the key points that Jesus prophesied in the Olivet Discourse was the destruction of the Temple, it is remarkable that there is no mention of this prophecy coming to pass. It's absence is a strong indicator that the Temple had not been destroyed yet. (For that matter, the Temple's destruction is not mentioned as a past event in any of the NT, which shows that the entire NT was written before it was destroyed in AD 70.) The Temple is still standing in Revelation 11:1-2. This is not a rebuilt 3rd temple, but the one that was still standing when John wrote this; the same one that Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse. I could go on with more internal evidence, but my point is this - I will take the evidence from within Scripture over that of uninspired church historians.

Again, how do you know this? Isn't this just conjecture on your part?

Speaking for myself, I dropped the "futurist" view several years ago as I realized that it simply didn't make sense. Then I discovered the preterist view, which shows how everything fits like the proverbial hand in a glove.

Since God had John write the Book, there was clearly enough time for the Book to be distributed to the desired audience. While there are applications from every book of the Bible for all Christians, this was written specifically to those 1st Century Christians as they were facing great tribulation.

The fact that we still have practicing Jews today doesn't change the fact that the Old Covenant age ended with the destruction of the Temple.

When you compare Scripture with Scripture, you see that the only correct way to interpret "this generation" is the people living at the time of the speaker. Any other rendering is pure conjecture.

Actually, all Preterists believe that Jesus "came" in AD 70. As a Partial Preterist, I believe this was a "judgment coming", not the same as the 2nd Advent, which is still in our future. Again, I take the evidence of Scripture over the early church fathers.

 

Just to balance things out, you may want to watch Ken Gentry's "Early Date of Revelation" on YouTube. It's about 46 minutes long.

 

I was complicating what Scriptures are very clear about. Thanks, Brother.

 

The debate I posted will debunk this as well. The 65AD date, when you look at the evidence, is intellectual suicide. It's not even close. I feel very bad for all the people caught up in this false movement. It will rob them of the blessing promised in the first chapter.